The reality, though, is statistically the threat from gun violence in the US far outweighs the threat from terrorism. The attack in Boston was a terrible event, but equally horrific mass shootings like Newtown and Colorado are significantly more common. I see very little difference between slaughtering dozens of innocent movie goers with a firearm and slaughtering dozens of innocent marathon spectators with a bomb. They are effectively the same crime in my mind. Yet the anger directed toward one seems greater to me than that directed toward the other. And while all sorts of people are calling for torture or denial of due process for Tsarnaev in Boston, did anyone at all advocate such measures for Holmes in Colorado?

I've heard nobody calling for the torture or denial of due process for the Boston bombers.

Guess you haven't been reading this board or even this thread. Either that, or you don't believe waterboarding is torture and you think tossing someone in Gitmo is due process (see original post above).

The claim that He will not be Mirandized is not verified. I'm watching the news right now on it and they said that is false and they fully expect the justice department to confirm the claim to be false in their press conference. I Moreau least as much outrage over the Newtown shootings. In response to Newtown the government has tried to quickly pass new gun laws. We don't hear about changing laws for the bombings. I just don't see the equivocation, both were crimes. They should both be addressed.

Lots of outrage for the kids, maybe a bit less for the movie goers. My point though is you don't hear many people calling for things like torture and suspension of habeas corpuse for monsters like Holmes but you do for equivalent monsters like Tsarnaev. And the gun law . . . please . . . it couldn't pass. Meanwhile all sorts of laws limiting civil liberties in cases of terrorism have passed annually since 2011.

Ultimately though, if somebody wants to kill they can find a way. But if somebody subscribes to be a member of a group that believes killing is justified than that is something we should look at.

I reread every post and not one calls for torture or denial of due process.

I would imagine there is some small inconsequential percentage of people who would support that idea in either case but that hardly makes it worth addressing as though its a major problem.

Your disagreement with laws does not make them unjust, they were passed by representatives that you and your fellow Americans voted for. I don't agree with all the laws, I find some gun laws to be an infringement of the second amendment but they were passed in the name of public safety. We have always had laws that limit our freedoms to some degree for public safety. If you don't like them than change public opinion enough and you will change the people who make the laws. For now you just have to suffer the fact that democracy doesn't mean you always get what YOU want.

What! Did you read even the post that starts this thread? And as far as your comments about Islamic (and Western) history, you really have a lot to learn.

You are right of course that Mohammed was a warrior. He was born at a time when the Arabian peninsula was wracked with bloody feuds between warring tribes. Mohammed introduced a highly progressive (by the standards of the time) justice system that replaced a system where conficts were resolved by violence. Those who resisted joining the new polity were forced to join through war. But the end result was a Middle East united in relative peace under a fair system of justice. This new stability ushered in a period in which the Islamic world was among the most advanced and successful civilizations ever to exist. As Europe rose to prominence after the industrial revolution, the Islamic world declined. But to dismiss the Islamic world as always backward and violent is ignorant.

The reality, though, is statistically the threat from gun violence in the US far outweighs the threat from terrorism. The attack in Boston was a terrible event, but equally horrific mass shootings like Newtown and Colorado are significantly more common. I see very little difference between slaughtering dozens of innocent movie goers with a firearm and slaughtering dozens of innocent marathon spectators with a bomb. They are effectively the same crime in my mind. Yet the anger directed toward one seems greater to me than that directed toward the other. And while all sorts of people are calling for torture or denial of due process for Tsarnaev in Boston, did anyone at all advocate such measures for Holmes in Colorado?

The clear difference is the presence of a conspiracy, possibly involving foreign elements. The results, death and injury are similar, but it was apparent that Holmes was a lone wackjob and there wasn't much danger involved after that event was done and he was captured. We may not know the extent of the conspiracy involved in the Marathon bombing for a while.

I don't think torture is necessary, not even waterboarding, for this guy. Maybe a little sleep deprivation. He'll give it up.

There could be a conspiracy--even one involving foreign elements--but that's possible in many crimes and there is no reason to throw out the Constitution because that possibility exists.

The reality, though, is statistically the threat from gun violence in the US far outweighs the threat from terrorism. The attack in Boston was a terrible event, but equally horrific mass shootings like Newtown and Colorado are significantly more common. I see very little difference between slaughtering dozens of innocent movie goers with a firearm and slaughtering dozens of innocent marathon spectators with a bomb. They are effectively the same crime in my mind. Yet the anger directed toward one seems greater to me than that directed toward the other. And while all sorts of people are calling for torture or denial of due process for Tsarnaev in Boston, did anyone at all advocate such measures for Holmes in Colorado?

I've heard nobody calling for the torture or denial of due process for the Boston bombers.

Guess you haven't been reading this board or even this thread. Either that, or you don't believe waterboarding is torture and you think tossing someone in Gitmo is due process (see original post above).

The claim that He will not be Mirandized is not verified. I'm watching the news right now on it and they said that is false and they fully expect the justice department to confirm the claim to be false in their press conference. I Moreau least as much outrage over the Newtown shootings. In response to Newtown the government has tried to quickly pass new gun laws. We don't hear about changing laws for the bombings. I just don't see the equivocation, both were crimes. They should both be addressed.

Lots of outrage for the kids, maybe a bit less for the movie goers. My point though is you don't hear many people calling for things like torture and suspension of habeas corpuse for monsters like Holmes but you do for equivalent monsters like Tsarnaev. And the gun law . . . please . . . it couldn't pass. Meanwhile all sorts of laws limiting civil liberties in cases of terrorism have passed annually since 2011.

Ultimately though, if somebody wants to kill they can find a way. But if somebody subscribes to be a member of a group that believes killing is justified than that is something we should look at.

I reread every post and not one calls for torture or denial of due process.

I would imagine there is some small inconsequential percentage of people who would support that idea in either case but that hardly makes it worth addressing as though its a major problem.

Your disagreement with laws does not make them unjust, they were passed by representatives that you and your fellow Americans voted for. I don't agree with all the laws, I find some gun laws to be an infringement of the second amendment but they were passed in the name of public safety. We have always had laws that limit our freedoms to some degree for public safety. If you don't like them than change public opinion enough and you will change the people who make the laws. For now you just have to suffer the fact that democracy doesn't mean you always get what YOU want.

What! Did you read even the post that starts this thread? And as far as your comments about Islamic (and Western) history, you really have a lot to learn.

You are right of course that Mohammed was a warrior. He was born at a time when the Arabian peninsula was wracked with bloody feuds between warring tribes. Mohammed introduced a highly progressive (by the standards of the time) justice system that replaced a system where conficts were resolved by violence. Those who resisted joining the new polity were forced to join through war. But the end result was a Middle East united in relative peace under a fair system of justice. This new stability ushered in a period in which the Islamic world was among the most advanced and successful civilizations ever to exist. As Europe rose to prominence after the industrial revolution, the Islamic world declined. But to dismiss the Islamic world as always backward and violent is ignorant.

Sir, that is simply false. If your idea of relative peace is totalatarian rule and subjugation of non-muslims than I suppose the middle east lived in relative peace. By Mohommads's own accounts he was the aggressor of the war in Mecca. He was asked to leave for insulting their gods repeteatadly. They never harmed him or any of his followers. He left, robbed caravans raised an an Army and returned to kill them.

His laws may have been progressive in the 600's but even that would be hard case to make. Those laws still exist today in much of the Middle East. Like empowering men as the owners of women, cutting off hands and feet, allowing marriage to child brides, the death penalty for changing religion from Islam, death penalty for being gay, the death penalty for drawing or insulting Mohommad. They are part of Sharia law and excepted by the vast majority of Muslims worldwide as a basic foundation of Islam because they are clearly outlined as law in Islamic doctrine. Children are sent to school to memorize the Quran and focus on Islamic teachings.

The idea of this Islamic golden age is simply a myth. Most scholars and inventors were not Muslim or were considered heretics at the time. Many were from recently conquered lands who still had some semblance of a secular society. Once Islamic rule was enforced non-Muslims were forced to pay a the jizya (tax) for not being Muslim, they were not permitted to preach their religion, or build churches or hold positions of authority over Muslims. To this day you cannot build churches in most Muslim countries as a matter of law. Non-muslims are arrested for simply attempting to go to Mecca. Persia (Iran) was once one of the most advanced societies in the world. The Zoroastrians that existed at that time have all but disappeared from pressured conversions and genocide. The advanced society that was once a world leader is now what we see in Iran. Islamic leaders like to claim the inventions and progressive works of Persia were Islamic but they simply were not. I'm not even going to get into the Armenians.

Do you really find it surprising that a society that enforces laws like I mentioned above are counterproductive to advanced society? Islam was as progressive as the societies it conquered, and when they ran out of lands to conquer we got what we have now. There have been Islamic scholars but most certainly Sharia law and theocracy have been a negative influence on human rights and education throughout the world whenever it was and is established.

love the fact that they did not read him his miranda rights and are classifying him as a public safety exception (terrorist). i lean socially left on most issues but hope they take him to gitmo and use some waterboarding tactics on him as well if need be BEFORE bringing him to a federal court for the death penalty. lets not be coyed and feared into thinking the enemy is just radical islam. the enemy can ultimately be a timothy mcvie (did we go after all irish guys?) or the IRA (most of their $ came from this country, again did we persecute all the irish?), atheists and nonatheists or christian violent extremists like eric rudolph (who did something similar at the 1996 olympics in addition to killing abortion providers). the unabomber was your classic lefty atheist-naturalist violent extremist. the guy in norway who killed all those kids last year was not a muslim, but a blonde nationalist-christian anarchist type. lanza with newtown was just an anarchist as well. the movie theater guy was in the same category as was the mall shooting guy who i believe was JAPANESE.

by far, apart from that one incident (9/11), more americans and westerners have been terrorized by their own kind than from violent muslim extremists.. by far! shouldnt hurt less because ur shot by your brother or neighbor. yes, some immigrants are violent just like some nativists. called life, deal with it! about time though that obama and the left stop with the individual exception game and adopt my term of "violent extremism" to combat the GOP's usual narrow description.. in this case "radical islam!"...

from now on, anyone with youtube or FB pages promoting violence or of folks promoting such violence should b treated like someone taking target practice at the prez or threatening him in that way. should b on a watch list and vigorously interrogated and looked at. if an immigrant, instant deportation or hearings to revoke status should b in play. enough is enough. now back to the gun debate... anyone yappping about overthrowing the government or using violence against it should not have a gun and should be watched. your arsenal should be enough to protect not your individual family or homes, not to overthrow anything. one big issue in this whole recent boston standoff is how the heck could these guys acquire all these guns, high powered weapons, grenades and serious bombs. this happens in no other country esp in the west and they too have violent types. they will soon find that the gun loopholes contributed.

we now have public faces of violence that can represent change. newtown now represents the face of gun violence and boston now represents the face of bomb violence!

A non-partisan report was just released that not only condemned torture it also had gone to great pains to determine the extent to which torture helped gather important intel. The answer - it didn't, it doesn't.

While there will be some who would condemn torture regardless this puts to rest any possible reason to employ torture.

If you believe in God you should be against torture. If you believe in morality you should be against torture. If you believe in due process you should be against torture. And if you believe in SECUIRTY you should be against torture. It does not help intel and it creates NEW reasons for hate. It has no positive value - unless revenge without due process (and therefore perhaps inflicted on an innocent person) is your goal.

I want intelligent, efficient, effective... and moral... security. And I do not want to create reasons for others to torture the brave men and women who put their lives on the line for us.

I understand our anger and our desire to strike hard and fast. It can be done without using this thing which has been shown to be INEFFECTIVE and even unreliable.

Oh dear. All I can say to that is read some reliable history of the Islamic world someday.

Read a history of Christian Europe in the middle ages too while you're at it.

I would suggest the same to you sir.

I was specific enough in my response that you could disprove my facts If you have references.

Sharia law is not progressive compared to today's standards in the West. It does, however, have many components that were highly progressive compared to anything that existed in Europe until quite recently. One simple example is that Sharia law gives women the right to divorce their husbands. This was pretty much unheard of in Europe until recently.

You can look through the laws of any nation and find things that by today's Western standards are outrageously unjust. Slavery was legal in the United States just 150 years ago. Women couldn't vote in the US until the 1920s. Homosexuals were subject to the death penalty in Europe and America until well into the 1800s. Europe has not always been the friendliest place for non-Christians--certainly they have been discriminated against by law as much as non-Muslims have been discriminated against in the Middle East. Christianity is famous for its pogroms against Jews, the worst being the attempt by Hitler to completely exterminate them. And as far as violent conflict, Christian Europe has been wracked by war for centuries. If you want to claim that the world of Islam is inherently more violent that that of Christendom, you have a tough burden of proof, because the World Wars alone were more destructive than anything that has occured elsewhere in history ever.

As far as the golden age of Islamic Civilization being a "myth" and your claim that most scholars and inventors during that time weren't Muslim, that's absurd and honestly sounds like nothing more than bigotry. I'm not going to write a history of Islam here . . . there are plenty published books for that which you can read if you care to learn (I recommend this one, by the way: http://www.amazon.com/History-Islamic-Societies-Ira-Lapidus/dp/0521779332/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1366546133&sr=1-3&keywords=history+of+the+islamic+world). I'll just add that during the Golden Age of Islamic Civilization, the Muslims were remarkably tolerant compared to anything but the modern Western world. While non-Muslims were not equals with Muslims, a significant number of Jews and Christians held positions of power, prominence, and respect. Yes, there was an ebb and flow of tolerance and intolerance through the Muslim world, but this is the same in Christendom and elsewhere. Generally, when cultures are prosperous and successful, they become more tolerant; when they fall under economic or political stress they become less tolerant. The desire to find the Islamic world inherently "inferior" because of it's religion is really completely unsupported by a careful examination of the history of all the world's civilizations, Islamic and other. It really suggests ignorance, bigotry, or (most likely) propoganda:

Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed towards influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position by presenting only one side of an argument. Propaganda is usually repeated and dispersed over a wide variety of media in order to create the chosen result in audience attitudes.

As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda, in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus possibly lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or uses loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the attitude toward the subject in the target audience to further a political, religious or commercial agenda. Propaganda can be used as a form of ideological or commercial warfare.

All due respect, who cares about what happened 1,500 years ago, or 500 years ago? What relevance does that have to what's going on now? I think the answer is pretty clear, none whatsoever.

The reality today, is that there are people (and I use that term loosely) who very frequently kill and maim innocent people in the name of their religion, and their power base is in foreign lands, principally the Middle East. We need to do everything in our power to protect ourselves from them.

Personally, I don't care why they feel the way they do. I have no interest in their point of view or their feelings or what drives them. I don't want dialogue with them, I don't want to try and understand them. I just want to kill them before they kill us.

Guantanamo is too good for them, frankly. Once we've obtained all the information and intelligence they can provide, I really don't care what happens to them. Bring back Devil's Island as far as I'm concerned. Or just dump them in the sea. I have no sympathy for them.

All due respect, who cares about what happened 1,500 years ago, or 500 years ago? What relevance does that have to what's going on now? I think the answer is pretty clear, none whatsoever.

The reality today, is that there are people (and I use that term loosely) who very frequently kill and maim innocent people in the name of their religion, and their power base is in foreign lands, principally the Middle East. We need to do everything in our power to protect ourselves from them.

Personally, I don't care why they feel the way they do. I have no interest in their point of view or their feelings or what drives them. I don't want dialogue with them, I don't want to try and understand them. I just want to kill them before they kill us.

Guantanamo is too good for them, frankly. Once we've obtained all the information and intelligence they can provide, I really don't care what happens to them. Bring back Devil's Island as far as I'm concerned. Or just dump them in the sea. I have no sympathy for them.

I think this great country should be better than that. Unfortunately, a large number of Americans no longer agree.

Oh dear. All I can say to that is read some reliable history of the Islamic world someday.

Read a history of Christian Europe in the middle ages too while you're at it.

I would suggest the same to you sir.

I was specific enough in my response that you could disprove my facts If you have references.

Sharia law is not progressive compared to today's standards in the West. It does, however, have many components that were highly progressive compared to anything that existed in Europe until quite recently. One simple example is that Sharia law gives women the right to divorce their husbands. This was pretty much unheard of in Europe until recently.

You can look through the laws of any nation and find things that by today's Western standards are outrageously unjust. Slavery was legal in the United States just 150 years ago. Women couldn't vote in the US until the 1920s. Homosexuals were subject to the death penalty in Europe and America until well into the 1800s. Europe has not always been the friendliest place for non-Christians--certainly they have been discriminated against by law as much as non-Muslims have been discriminated against in the Middle East. Christianity is famous for its pogroms against Jews, the worst being the attempt by Hitler to completely exterminate them. And as far as violent conflict, Christian Europe has been wracked by war for centuries. If you want to claim that the world of Islam is inherently more violent that that of Christendom, you have a tough burden of proof, because the World Wars alone were more destructive than anything that has occured elsewhere in history ever.

As far as the golden age of Islamic Civilization being a "myth" and your claim that most scholars and inventors during that time weren't Muslim, that's absurd and honestly sounds like nothing more than bigotry. I'm not going to write a history of Islam here . . . there are plenty published books for that which you can read if you care to learn (I recommend this one, by the way: http://www.amazon.com/History-Islamic-Societies-Ira-Lapidus/dp/0521779332/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1366546133&sr=1-3&keywords=history+of+the+islamic+world). I'll just add that during the Golden Age of Islamic Civilization, the Muslims were remarkably tolerant compared to anything but the modern Western world. While non-Muslims were not equals with Muslims, a significant number of Jews and Christians held positions of power, prominence, and respect. Yes, there was an ebb and flow of tolerance and intolerance through the Muslim world, but this is the same in Christendom and elsewhere. Generally, when cultures are prosperous and successful, they become more tolerant; when they fall under economic or political stress they become less tolerant. The desire to find the Islamic world inherently "inferior" because of it's religion is really completely unsupported by a careful examination of the history of all the world's civilizations, Islamic and other. It really suggests ignorance, bigotry, or (most likely) propoganda:

Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed towards influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position by presenting only one side of an argument. Propaganda is usually repeated and dispersed over a wide variety of media in order to create the chosen result in audience attitudes.

As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda, in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus possibly lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or uses loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the attitude toward the subject in the target audience to further a political, religious or commercial agenda. Propaganda can be used as a form of ideological or commercial warfare.

Pro, you have made some good points throughout this thread but you are way off base on Sharia Law. I could post 100's if not 1000's of examples but this 1 should suffice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jaqa1lgBQEE

Like any "law," Sharia law is many things and interpreted many different ways. It has been both a progressive force and a regressive one, depending on who is interpreting it and enforcing it. The problem I have is the way so many people make broad generalizations about Islam and the Middle East based on what makes the news here, which is mostly the negative side. Remember more than one in five people in the world is Muslim. That's about 1.6 billion people. There's a lot more to the story than terrorism. In some ways, judging the Muslim world based on terrorism is like judging the US or the West based on Timothy McVeigh or Adolf Hitler or the IRA. All those things are part of the West, but they are a small part of a very big story.

My main point, though, isn't about Islam or the Middle East. It's about America--a land that stands (I hope still) for basic principles of justice that our Founders' enshrined in our Constitution. Those principles of justice should apply to all people, no matter how evil they or their deeds may be. That's what America at its best has always stood for.

Sadly, a lot of Americans clearly don't see that anymore.

The terrorists will win not by killing us, but by destroying our commitment to the things that make us different from them and that have made us great through our history.

____________

Also, I should point out, since you linked to it, that rape is indeed forbidden and punished harshly under Sharia law, at least as it has traditionally been interpreted and enforced. You can find many examples of societies with all sorts of different legal codes that have ignored rape and blamed and even abused the victims of rape. Sadly, that's part of human history in general and not unique to Muslim societies. But you can't define all of Sharia law based on these kinds of events anymore than you can define US law by lynchings in the South.

I understand what your saying in terms of the oppression from Christianity in European history but it is simply not on a scale that is close to the wars waged for hundreds of years in the name of Islam. More people died in the WTC than the entire Spanish inquisition. Mohommad was a warrior who had revelations from god to inspire his followers to war and the Quran is filled with those revelations. No other religion was formed by the teachings of a warrior. I think history shows Islamic doctrine is different in both its message and practice by many followers than other faiths.

I am sorry but you seem to have a different history book than mine - The Crusades were incredibly mismanaged wars of aggression and had little to do with defending innocents but rather with conquoring territory, pillage, and rape in the name of Christianity. The fact that one of the most successful Crusades main accomplishment was the sacking of Constantinople which was a the time a great Christian city is telling.

As for wars of aggression - the history of Europe is rife with religious wars of Catholic vs ___. The history of the British Isles as well.

The history of the New World is all about Catholics and Protestants treating native populations as sub-human and genocides with the full support of the various church authorities.

I reread every post and not one calls for torture or denial of due process.

I would imagine there is some small inconsequential percentage of people who would support that idea in either case but that hardly makes it worth addressing as though its a major problem.

Your disagreement with laws does not make them unjust, they were passed by representatives that you and your fellow Americans voted for. I don't agree with all the laws, I find some gun laws to be an infringement of the second amendment but they were passed in the name of public safety. We have always had laws that limit our freedoms to some degree for public safety. If you don't like them than change public opinion enough and you will change the people who make the laws. For now you just have to suffer the fact that democracy doesn't mean you always get what YOU want.

I guess you have not seen or read the interviews with various elected officials over the last week calling for just these actions. And the initial statements by law enforcement and attorney's stating that he was not and would not be mirandized using the law that specifically allows interogation without miranda in state security cases.

Failure to Mirandize only excludes from legal proceedings the results of any interogation that occurs, so it really has little legal effect in this case.

As for calls to send him to Guantanimo, and to used 'enhanced interogation' (or torture as it is called everywhere except the USA) proves that the people speaking have really no undertsanding of recent history. Guantanimo has been an unmittigated disaster, not just from a public relations standpoint, but also from a practical ability to convict anyone. The record of federal courts is far superior on terrorist convictions.

Quote from the initial post: i lean socially left on most issues but hope they take him to gitmo and use some waterboarding tactics on him as well if need be BEFORE bringing him to a federal court for the death penalty.

All due respect, who cares about what happened 1,500 years ago, or 500 years ago? What relevance does that have to what's going on now? I think the answer is pretty clear, none whatsoever.

The reality today, is that there are people (and I use that term loosely) who very frequently kill and maim innocent people in the name of their religion, and their power base is in foreign lands, principally the Middle East. We need to do everything in our power to protect ourselves from them.

Personally, I don't care why they feel the way they do. I have no interest in their point of view or their feelings or what drives them. I don't want dialogue with them, I don't want to try and understand them. I just want to kill them before they kill us.

Guantanamo is too good for them, frankly. Once we've obtained all the information and intelligence they can provide, I really don't care what happens to them. Bring back Devil's Island as far as I'm concerned. Or just dump them in the sea. I have no sympathy for them.

Respectfully disagree. It is important to understand history to understand today, and predict tomorrow. We do not need to go back 1500 years, try 85 years.

At the end of WWI, the masters of the universe (the voctorious allies) drew lines on a map of the middle east and created 'countries' that had no historical basis and ignored tribal/religious divisions. And then they installed leaders (puppets) that they could control and manipulate to exploit oil.

At the end of WWII the Allies once again meddled in the region by not properly managing a huge migration of Jewish refuges to an area of Palistine which was at the time a British protectorate. This migration was responsible for a terrorist campaign against the British (the 'invented' many of the current terrorist tactics during this struggle) which led to a British withdrawl, and the creation of a Jewish state in an area of predominant arab/islamic population.

During the following 'cold war' the Soviet Union and the West (primarily the USA) used the various ME strong men as surogates in the larger conflict. We didn't really care what they did internally as long as they were aligned with us, and we propped them up with arms and money. During this time we helped train many of the terrorist we now dispise.

And then the cold war disappeared and we in various ways lost interest as long as we could still get the oil.

And then we invaded Afghanistan for cause in what was maybe a 'just war'. But unfortunately we sort of lost interest in that occupation once we got there and looked elsewhere. And we invaded Iraq for a newly minted justification 'regime change'. This was of course a former ally who we had used and armed as a surrogate in their war against another former ally Iran. A cynic might say that war was one of conquest motivated by greed for oil. And our planning for post victory Iraq ... oops, what plan! We talk about the US casualties in these two wars, but seldom count the military losses of our 'enemies' - why bother, the wars were so short lived. But worse than that, by creating total chaos in both countries the number of 'civilian' casualties is truly staggering.

And with that history, and our continued presence, we are surprised that the local populations who happen to be Islamic are not in love with all the USA represents. Add that to a number of really pathetic fanatical US citizens who like to create a stir we are losing a public relations 'war'.

And our surgical strikes are not always so accurate as the generals, politicians, and manufacturers of those weapons would like to pretend. We call it collateral damage, the celebrants of a marriage killed from the air might call it terrorism.

So, yes. I think history matters. And I believe if you want to call the US President the 'Leader of the Free World' (whatever that means) as we Americans frequently do, then you better be sure that you live by the rules of law and the freedoms set forth in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. And that includes when you deal with 'monsters' of any ilk including those who by their actions offend everything you hold dear. That includes terrorists, mass murders, child rapists, and foreign countries.

All due respect, who cares about what happened 1,500 years ago, or 500 years ago? What relevance does that have to what's going on now? I think the answer is pretty clear, none whatsoever.

The reality today, is that there are people (and I use that term loosely) who very frequently kill and maim innocent people in the name of their religion, and their power base is in foreign lands, principally the Middle East. We need to do everything in our power to protect ourselves from them.

Personally, I don't care why they feel the way they do. I have no interest in their point of view or their feelings or what drives them. I don't want dialogue with them, I don't want to try and understand them. I just want to kill them before they kill us.

Guantanamo is too good for them, frankly. Once we've obtained all the information and intelligence they can provide, I really don't care what happens to them. Bring back Devil's Island as far as I'm concerned. Or just dump them in the sea. I have no sympathy for them.

Muz

We share some basic feelings on some of this. For example, if a person enters your home uninvited and with a gun you are immediately confronted with the NEED to defend yourself and your family. Similarly if someone attacks this country either with an army or terrorism we need to defend and do it with full force.

Yet there are some issues that have arisen in the course of events these past couple of decades and so I would like you to consider and then perhaps respond to a couple of initial questions:

1. Should we be weak in defense of our selves and our country if the attack is from a U.S. citizen?

2. If an innnocent person - someone who has never participated in any of this - is through bad fortune or even some personal malice from someone who knows them swept up by our efforts to defend ourselves, should we deal justly and fairly with them once we realize they are not an enemy?

....

If you respond yes to the first then what of the many dozens of white American home grown terrorists that have been brought to justice over the past decades? What I mean is why limit our rhetoric to seeing only Muslims and not white Christian Americans who have been evil or intend to be evil?

If you repsond yes to the second then what of the at least few in Gitmo who are innocent yet kept there? I am not calling for any wholesale changes in these questions. Only to deal with people in the same way... law should be applied evenly, not favoring one group or another. If you have done bad things then the law should do its job. If you have not then that should be recognized. There is no need to be liberal or conservative. It is a simple principle which is part of the foundation of this country, of the Constitution, of what we are fighting for when we put our lives at risk. It is also a critical part of our standards of morality, of Christianity and Judaism and even Islam... even it there are many who are not practicing what their religion preaches.

All due respect, who cares about what happened 1,500 years ago, or 500 years ago? What relevance does that have to what's going on now? I think the answer is pretty clear, none whatsoever.

The reality today, is that there are people (and I use that term loosely) who very frequently kill and maim innocent people in the name of their religion, and their power base is in foreign lands, principally the Middle East. We need to do everything in our power to protect ourselves from them.

Personally, I don't care why they feel the way they do. I have no interest in their point of view or their feelings or what drives them. I don't want dialogue with them, I don't want to try and understand them. I just want to kill them before they kill us.

Guantanamo is too good for them, frankly. Once we've obtained all the information and intelligence they can provide, I really don't care what happens to them. Bring back Devil's Island as far as I'm concerned. Or just dump them in the sea. I have no sympathy for them.

Respectfully disagree. It is important to understand history to understand today, and predict tomorrow. We do not need to go back 1500 years, try 85 years.

At the end of WWI, the masters of the universe (the voctorious allies) drew lines on a map of the middle east and created 'countries' that had no historical basis and ignored tribal/religious divisions. And then they installed leaders (puppets) that they could control and manipulate to exploit oil.

At the end of WWII the Allies once again meddled in the region by not properly managing a huge migration of Jewish refuges to an area of Palistine which was at the time a British protectorate. This migration was responsible for a terrorist campaign against the British (the 'invented' many of the current terrorist tactics during this struggle) which led to a British withdrawl, and the creation of a Jewish state in an area of predominant arab/islamic population.

During the following 'cold war' the Soviet Union and the West (primarily the USA) used the various ME strong men as surogates in the larger conflict. We didn't really care what they did internally as long as they were aligned with us, and we propped them up with arms and money. During this time we helped train many of the terrorist we now dispise.

And then the cold war disappeared and we in various ways lost interest as long as we could still get the oil.

And then we invaded Afghanistan for cause in what was maybe a 'just war'. But unfortunately we sort of lost interest in that occupation once we got there and looked elsewhere. And we invaded Iraq for a newly minted justification 'regime change'. This was of course a former ally who we had used and armed as a surrogate in their war against another former ally Iran. A cynic might say that war was one of conquest motivated by greed for oil. And our planning for post victory Iraq ... oops, what plan! We talk about the US casualties in these two wars, but seldom count the military losses of our 'enemies' - why bother, the wars were so short lived. But worse than that, by creating total chaos in both countries the number of 'civilian' casualties is truly staggering.

And with that history, and our continued presence, we are surprised that the local populations who happen to be Islamic are not in love with all the USA represents. Add that to a number of really pathetic fanatical US citizens who like to create a stir we are losing a public relations 'war'.

And our surgical strikes are not always so accurate as the generals, politicians, and manufacturers of those weapons would like to pretend. We call it collateral damage, the celebrants of a marriage killed from the air might call it terrorism.

So, yes. I think history matters. And I believe if you want to call the US President the 'Leader of the Free World' (whatever that means) as we Americans frequently do, then you better be sure that you live by the rules of law and the freedoms set forth in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. And that includes when you deal with 'monsters' of any ilk including those who by their actions offend everything you hold dear. That includes terrorists, mass murders, child rapists, and foreign countries.

mia, please show me the part where I justified every action of the U.S. or her allies in the Middle East in the last 85 years. I'm confining myself to the here and now and I'm talking solely about protecting ourselves from foreign terrorists who would do harm to Americans here. I don't think we should be in Iraq or Afghanistan at all. I think we should exploit our domestic energy supplies to a far greater extent and remove ourselves from that region to the extent possible. I truly don't care what they do to each other and that includes Israel. Why should I care what happens in Syria or Libya or anywhere else in that part of the world? Answer: oil, otherwise it would be the same as sub-Saharan Africa and equally inconsequential. We can't afford to be the world's policeman any more. If they all want to kill each other, so be it.

I also don't think we should put up with subhumans or accord them the same rights or due process that we do our own citizens who are accused of some crime in this country. That's my view, and I don't really care what the consequences of that are or what anybody else thinks of it, thanks.

I also don't think we should put up with subhumans or accord them the same rights or due process that we do our own citizens who are accused of some crime in this country. That's my view, and I don't really care what the consequences of that are or what anybody else thinks of it, thanks.

That's your view and you have a right to hold it, but the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, makes it clear that the due process rights are to be afforded to all "persons," citizens or not.